Take Off the Muzzle and the Economy Will*Roar

cawacko said:
For those that think 2% growth is the new normal there are fortunately others who disagree.




Take Off the Muzzle and the Economy Will*Roar


In his Saturday Wall Street Journal essay “Why the Economy Doesn’t Roar Anymore”—illustrated with a big lion with its mouth shut—Marc Levinson offers the answer that the “U.S. economy isn’t behaving badly. It is just being ordinary.” *But there is nothing ordinary (or secular) about the current stagnation of *barely 2 percent growth. The economy is not roaring because it’s muzzled by government policy, and if we take off that muzzle—like Lucy and Susan did in “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”—the economy will indeed roar.

It is of course true, as Levinson states, that “faster productivity growth” is “the key to faster economic growth.” But it’s false, as he also states, *that it has all been downhill since the “long boom after World War II” and “there is no going back.” The following chart of productivity growth drawn from my article in the American Economic Review shows why Levinson misinterprets recent history. Whether you look at 5 year averages, statistically filtered trends, or simple directional arrows, you can see huge swings in productivity growth in recent years. *These movements—the productivity slump of the 1970s, the rebound of the 1980s and 1990s, and the recent slump—are closely related to shifts in economic policy, and economic theory indicates that the relationship is causal, as I explain here*and here*and in blogs and opeds.*You can also see that the recent terrible performance—negative productivity growth for the past year—is anything but ordinary. *

Writing about the 1980’s and 1990s, Levinson claims that “deregulation, privatization, lower tax rates, balanced budgets and rigid rules for monetary policy—proved no more successful at boosting productivity than the statist policies…” The chart shows the contrary: productivity growth was generally picking up in the 1980s and 1990s.* It is the stagnation of the late 1960s, the 1970s, and the last decade that is state-sponsored. *To turn the economy around we need to take the muzzle off, and that means regulatory reform, tax reform, budget reform, and monetary reform.


https://economicsone.com/2016/10/16/take-off-the-muzzle-and-the-economy-will-roar/
Click to expand...
You try so hard to make it appear that you know anything about economics.

And then you post nonsense like this.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
So we have more crash and burn business cycles? That's exactly what happens when free market fundamentalism is given a free reign. Sure the economy roars for a little while then crashes and destroys far more lives. Sorry but the historical track record of you laissez faire capitalist is almost as bad as communist. Ultimately it produces anticompetitive trust and monopolies and boom and bust cycles that devastates the economy.
Click to expand...
Agree. The instances of success offered in the OP were followed by horrible crashes when the bubble burst.

The economy slowed when Saudi Arabia opened the floodgates with oil.

Most Americans did very well on a weekly/monthly basis, as heating and driving costs were halved. Sure...the market suffered while we all benefited.
 
Althea said:
You try so hard to make it appear that you know anything about economics.

And then you post nonsense like this.
Click to expand...

Excellent response Althea. Thank you for the insight. Would you care to share with us more about your belief that Keynesian economics is a complete failure?
 
Rune said:
Translation: I spout simpleton talking points but don't know my ass from a hole in the ground.
Click to expand...

Actually he's spot on and it's what the OP wrote about. The devil is always in the details but he's exactly right.
 
Rune is becoming a sycophant/albatross of no value. Basically one of those little dogs that bark a lot but don't do anything..

I read somewhere that Obama regs last year alone cost like $700b for compliance -that's a lot of drag to deal with.

Prune it back and MOST IMPORTANTLY make agencies like the EPA take costs into account.
By law (SCOTUS) they ony need to use pure science -but Trump can run it any way he wants.
 
anatta said:
Rune is becoming a sycophant/albatross of no value. Basically one of those little dogs that bark a lot but don't do anything..

I read somewhere that Obama regs last year alone cost like $700b for compliance -that's a lot of drag to deal with.

Prune it back and MOST IMPORTANTLY make agencies like the EPA take costs into account.
By law (SCOTUS) they ony need to use pure science -but Trump can run it any way he wants.
Click to expand...

I listened to an interesting podcast recently where the guest argued we need to get away from the more/less regulations debate and argue more about making regulations efficient. Always easier said than done but he makes a good point. We need and will always have regulations but the debate ends up now if you want less regulations you are accused of wanting no regulations and that ends up going nowhere.
 
cawacko said:
I listened to an interesting podcast recently where the guest argued we need to get away from the more/less regulations debate and argue more about making regulations efficient. Always easier said than done but he makes a good point. We need and will always have regulations but the debate ends up now if you want less regulations you are accused of wanting no regulations and that ends up going nowhere.
Click to expand...
that's exactly it. why do all this WOTUS stuff by the EPA to regulate what is essentially pond water?
Why in Great Buddhas name is DC interested in ephemeral streams to nowhere?
Land owners need to file permits -adjudication is needed ( and good luck with that) over really nothing of consequence

same deal with the OZone numbers - leaving them at 75 ppb vs driving them down to 65 ppb ( sought) brings very little gains at enormous costs.
Practicality ( costs/benefits ratio) has to be applied. It's not a pure science world
 
"McConnell and Romney" PP #29
Click to expand...
President Trump is going to need both McConnell and Ryan. Trump isn't going to get through 4 years as president on executive orders alone.

And both these congressional leaders have made clear their concerns about Trump's style. Candidly, some (including me) think Trump has already exceeded what is wise, in his nuclear arsenal expansion commitment. It was unwise on numerous levels.
 
cawacko said:
We don't have laaissez faire capitalism in this country. We have nothing close. And have you ever seen an economy anywhere on the globe that never has up and downs? That was a rhetorical question, it doesn't exist.

And Mott, you're too smart to embarrass yourself with that last statement. You are comparing the results of capitalism and communism. Just stop
Click to expand...

Yet if you do what the article suggests that is exactly what you will have.
Althea is correct about you, you smug bastard
AND anatta is a stupid twat
 
Rune said:
Yet if you do what the article suggests that is exactly what you will have.
Althea is correct about you, you smug bastard
AND anatta is a stupid twat
Click to expand...

You said you are smarter than 99.7% of the people in the country and you're calling me smug? And no Mr. Straw Man, the OP is not suggesting eliminating all regulations in this country. It's amazing the fear you have of the word reform.
 
cawacko said:
You said you are smarter than 99.7% of the people in the country and you're calling me smug? And no Mr. Straw Man, the OP is not suggesting eliminating all regulations in this country. It's amazing the fear you have of the word reform.
Click to expand...

It was a statement of fact, no smugness required.
There are very few regulations which don't have a sound basis.
 
Rune said:
It was a statement of fact, no smugness required.
There are very few regulations which don't have a sound basis.
Click to expand...
basis is one thing - the tendency to aggrandize powers for powers sake happened under Obama desire for a transformative presidency.

He basically let the ABC's run wild because he see's no limits as a good thing
 
"There are very few regulations which don't have a sound basis." R #38
Click to expand...
"Sound basis" is subjective.

I'd say, that there's a reason. That doesn't necessarily make it a sound reason.

We needn't look any further than the 18th Amendment, or the Volstead act for examples of grotesque U.S. federal over-reach.
 
anatta said:
basis is one thing - the tendency to aggrandize powers for powers sake happened under Obama desire for a transformative presidency.

He basically let the ABC's run wild because he see's no limits as a good thing
Click to expand...

Other than WOTUS provide some examples please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top